alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 418.1301 What is an initial determination regarding your income-related monthly adjustment amount? An initial determination is the determination we make about your income-related monthly adjustment amount that is subject to administrative review. For the purposes of administering the income-related monthly adjustment amount, initial determinations include but are not limited to determinations about: ( a ) The amount of your income-related monthly adjustment amount based on information provided by IRS; and
( b ) Any change in your income-related monthly adjustment amount based on one of the circumstances listed in § 418.1310(a)(1) through (a)(4).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,727
<SECURITIES>                                       658
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                       849
<INVENTORY>                                     28,044
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,085
<PP&E>                                          46,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,170
<SALES>                                         27,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,005
<CGS>                                           17,015
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,348
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    642
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
### §285m. Withdrawal rights covering United States Special Resources

The United States shall have the right to withdraw all or part of the United States Special Resources and any accrued resources derived therefrom under the procedures provided for in section 8.03 of the Special Funds Rules and Regulations of the Bank.

(Pub. L. 89–369, §16, as added Pub. L. 92–245, §1, Mar. 10, 1972, 86 Stat. 58.)
SERVED: May 27, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA- 2013-0040 

ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Respondent filed a Request for Judicial Notice dated May 14, 2014. Respondent's request be 

and is hereby GRANTED. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment-Service List 

1. '<0 ~ . {:.:. ~ 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices 

465 California Street, Suite 21 0 

San Francisco, CA 941 04-1808 

TEL: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Agency Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5074 

FAX: 817-222-5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0040 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

I Service was by u.s. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
#### George F. Elliott, Respondent, v. William W. Niles and Henry B. Johnson, Copartners, etc., Appellants.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the ground that the evidence does not warrant a finding that more than ten days were necessarily spent in the business of the reference, unless within twenty days plaintiff stipulate to reduce the recovery of damages to the sum of $200; in which event the judgment as modified is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT
      99.1










**Report
      of Independent Accountants**









To
      the
      Board of Directors and


Shareholder
      of Equity One, Inc.:









We
      have
      examined management’s assertion about Equity One, Inc. and its subsidiaries’
(the “Company”) compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in
      the Mortgage Bankers Association of America’s Uniform Single Attestation Program
      for Mortgage Bankers (“USAP”) as of and for the year ended November 30, 2005
      included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I). Management
      is
      responsible for the Company’s compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
      Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the
      Company’s compliance based on our examination.




Our
      examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
      the
      American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
      examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the
      minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
      considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
      provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
      a
      legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the minimum servicing
      standards.




In
      our
      opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the
      aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended November
      30, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material respects.




/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





February
      27, 2006
















**Management’s
      Assertion Concerning Compliance**


**with
      USAP Minimum Servicing Standards**









February
      22, 2006









As
      of and
      for the year ended November 30, 2005, Equity One, Inc. and its subsidiaries
      (the “Company”),
      a wholly-owned subsidiary of Popular Financial Holdings, Inc., have complied
      in all
      material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage
      Bankers Association
      of America’s *Uniform
      Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (“USAP”) solely
      for purpose of servicing the residential mortgage loans underlying the Loan
      Asset Backed Certificate
      Series 1997-1, 1998-1, 1999-1, 2000-1, 2001-1, 2001-2, 2001-3, 2002-1, 2002-2, 2002-3,
      2002-4, 2002-5, 2003-1, 2003-2, 2003-3, 2003-4, 2004-1, 2004-2, 2004-3, 2004-4,
      2004-- 5,
      2005-1, 2005-2, 2005-A, 2005-3, 2005-B, 2005-4, 2005-C, 2005-5, 2005-D (the “Agreement”)
      except as noted as
      follows:




As
      of and
      for this same period, the Company had in effect fidelity bond and errors and
      omissions policies
      in the amounts of $65,000,000 and $25,000,000, respectively.






/s/ John
              N.
              MartellaJohn
              N. MartellaGroup
                Executive Vice President of Loan Servicing
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7574

VERNON EGGELSTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA CORRECTIONAL ENTERPRISES DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS; JIM DILLON; CHARLIE B. HUDSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-671-2)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 18, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon Eggelston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a

filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th

Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the

case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee

order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district

court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §2685. Reimbursement for detailed State Department personnel

(a) An Executive agency to which any officer or employee of the Department of State is detailed, assigned, or otherwise made available, shall reimburse the Department for the salary and allowances of each such officer or employee for the period the officer or employee is so detailed, assigned, or otherwise made available. However, if the Department of State has an agreement with an Executive agency or agencies providing for the detailing, assigning, or otherwise making available, of substantially the same numbers of officers and employees between the Department and the Executive agency or agencies, and such numbers with respect to a fiscal year are so detailed, assigned, or otherwise made available, or if the period for which the officer or employee is so detailed, assigned, or otherwise made available does not exceed one year, or if the number of officers and employees so detailed, assigned, or otherwise made available at any one time does not exceed fifteen and the period of any such detail, assignment, or availability of an officer or employee does not exceed two years, no reimbursement shall be required to be made under this section. Officers and employees of the Department of State who are detailed, assigned, or otherwise made available to another Executive agency for a period of not to exceed one year shall not be counted toward any personnel ceiling for the Department of State established by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(b) For purposes of this section, "Executive agency" has the same meaning given that term by section 105 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 93–126, §11, Oct. 18, 1973, 87 Stat. 453; Pub. L. 95–426, title I, §118, Oct. 7, 1978, 92 Stat. 969; Pub. L. 99–93, title I, §117, Aug. 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 412.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1985—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–93 inserted "or if the number of officers and employees so detailed, assigned, or otherwise made available at any one time does not exceed fifteen and the period of any such detail, assignment, or availability of an officer or employee does not exceed two years," after "does not exceed one year,".

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–426 substituted "does not exceed one year" for "does not exceed ninety days", and inserted provision excepting from any personnel ceiling for the Department of State any officers and employees who are detailed, etc., to another Executive agency for a period of not to exceed one year.
(1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  /s/ Pedro A. RichardsPedro A. Richards
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

In re CHARLES PORTUS. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

December 2, 2014 

v No. 309197 

Oakland Probate Court 

CHARLES PORTUS, LC No. 1976-017337-MI 

 Appellant. 

Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and SAAD and FORT HOOD, JJ. 

GLEICHER, J. (concurring). 

 Charles Portus has been institutionalized and in the custody of the Center for Forensic 

Psychiatry (CFP) for 40 years. The probate court was required to periodically review the 

appropriateness of Mr. Portus’s continued placement to ensure that he was not unconstitutionally 

confined after recovering his mental faculties. Unfortunately, the probate court improperly 

delayed in conducting a single hearing regarding one of the prosecutor’s multiple biannual 

petitions for continuing treatment or involuntary hospitalization. I concur with the lead opinion’s 

assessment that this error was harmless, because the delay did not hinder Mr. Portus’s release. 

 When a person is acquitted of criminal charges by reason of insanity, that person is 

remitted by the court to the care and custody of the CFP. MCL 330.2050(1). That person “shall 

not be discharged or placed on leave without first being evaluated and recommended for 

discharge or leave by” the CFP. MCL 330.2050(5). Certain grounds preclude the discharge and 

release of a person acquitted by reason of insanity, MCL 330.2050(2), (5), including when he or 

she “[c]an be reasonably expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally 

seriously physically injure himself or herself or another person, and has overtly acted in a 

manner substantially supportive of that expectation.” MCL 330.1515(b). Stated differently, a 

person may not be released from CFP care and custody if he or she “has engaged in an act or acts 

or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation.” MCL 

330.1401(1)(a). 

 The CFP conducted a clinical evaluation of Mr. Portus in the midst of these proceedings. 

During that evaluation, Mr. Portus’s comments revealed that he remained a danger to others. 
-2- 

Mr. Portus described that while on a limited release from the CFP, he fantasized about 

kidnapping a child in a store. Mr. Portus further reported that he continues to have violent sexual 

fantasies involving children. Mr. Portus’s admissions and his various psychiatric and 

psychological conditions presented a bleak picture, resulting in the CFP’s recommendation that 

Mr. Portus’s institutionalization be continued. Accordingly, despite the court’s delay in 

conducting a required hearing, Mr. Portus had no statutory or constitutional right to release. 

 Moreover, Mr. Portus withdrew his request for discharge from CFP custody while the 

lower court proceedings were pending. Therefore, a timely hearing would not have affected a 

change in Mr. Portus’s position and he can establish no prejudice resulting from the delay. In 

my view, no additional analysis is appropriate or required. 

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 151

 148

 155

 159

 162

 166

 153

 156

 153

 150

 152

 157

 166

 170

 171

 163

 178

 165

 172

 161

 163

 170

 167

 153

 151

 142

 142

 157

 164

 161

 106

 82

 92

 103

 102

 110

 89

 103

 110

 107

 109

 116

 103

 116

 117

 111

 91

 95

 106

 97

 105

 109

 106

 105

 111

 93

 101

 101

 103

 114

 125

 121

 128

 133

 139

 143

 136

 138

 140

 137

 139

 143

 145

 144

 141

 142

 144

 142

 145

 143

 144

 142

 136

 133

 134

 127

 123

 130

 138

 138

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 1, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Exhibit
10.40  AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE
NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.
LONG TERM INCENTIVE DEFERRAL PLAN WHEREAS, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (NYSE)
maintains the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Long Term Incentive Deferral Plan,
effective as of August 1, 1997 (the Plan);  WHEREAS, NYSE may amend the Plan by action of its board of
directors (the Board) or a person designated by the Board; and  WHEREAS, the Board deems it advisable to amend the Plan.  NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 10 of the Plan, the
Plan is hereby amended, effective May 1, 2001, as follows:  1.Section
4(a) is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof:  (d)  Notwithstanding any other provision in the Plan to the
contrary, effective May 1, 2001, no portion of any Performance Award may be
deferred and no Deferred Amounts shall be credited to a Participants Deferred
Compensation Account under the Plan after May 1, 2001. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused
this Amendment to be executed this 13th day of August, 2001.  NEW
  YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.Frank Z. Ashen
  By:
  /s/ Frank Z. AshenExecutive Vice PresidentHuman Resources
  Title: Executive Vice
  President Human Resources
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 217

 251

 245

 290

 435

 521

 511

 628

 516

 238

 210

 206

 208

 205

 223

 209

 210

 248

 259

 262

 261

 263

 247

 211

 213

 213

 234

 229

 220

 218

 218

 184

 185

 186

 188

 187

 187

 189

 190

 187

 183

 182

 186

 187

 183

 189

 183

 175

 165

 163

 163

 172

 174

 182

 187

 188

 191

 187

 191

 197

 197

 171

 191

 197

 200

 208

 233

 246

 243

 265

 235

 192

 193

 194

 195

 195

 197

 195

 189

 189

 187

 189

 194

 193

 194

 195

 196

 199

 200

 210

 209

 207

 196

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.1920 Your appeal rights in the State.

Under its interim assistance agreement with us, the State must agree to give you an opportunity for a hearing if you disagree with the State's actions regarding repayment of interim assistance. For example, you are entitled to a hearing by the State if you disagree with the State regarding the amount of the repayment the State keeps or the amount of any excess the State pays to you. You are not entitled to a Federal hearing on the State's actions regarding repayment of interim assistance.
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.1024 Medical and other purchased services.

The State will determine the rates of payment for purchasing medical or other services necessary to make determinations of disability. The rates may not exceed the highest rate paid by Federal or other agencies in the State for the same or similar type of service. The State will maintain documentation to support the rates of payment it uses.

[46 FR 29211, May 29, 1981, as amended at 71 FR 16461, Mar. 31, 2006; 76 FR 24812, May 3, 2011]
#### Cleo Costume Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Peerless Tailor Dresses, Incorporated, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         329,329
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               422,576
<PP&E>                                       5,377,764
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,840,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,991,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          218,927
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,772,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,991,781
<SALES>                                      2,479,037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,512,393
<CGS>                                        2,035,681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,035,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               402,860
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 73,852
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             73,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    73,852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.19
        



</TABLE>
#### Mary Capela, Respondent, v. International Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred,
(No. 6984

#### Zion Benton Hospital, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed December 26, 1972.*

Zion Benton Hospital, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
EXHIBIT 32.1



           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of First
Keystone Corporation (the "Corporation") for the period ended
September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Matthew P. Prosseda, Chief Executive
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
          in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of the Corporation as of and for the
          period covered by the Report.






                                /s/ Matthew P. Prosseda

                                Matthew P. Prosseda
                                Chief Executive Officer


November 8, 2010
### SUBCHAPTER II—COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM